The Chancellor's Budget speech on 21 March seemed at first to have little about pensions. Just as well, many would say, after the series of attacks pensions schemes have suffered recently from various quarters (MFR, ACT, FRED 20, the Ombudsman's GMP ruling . . . to say nothing about stakeholder), that the oft-feared abolition of tax-free cash once again failed to feature. Of course, neither was there anything about simplification of the Revenue limits framework. But was it really so innocuous?

As everyone expected, the Earnings Cap for the coming year was confirmed as £91,800. The basic rate of income tax is to be cut from 23% to 22%, with a similar reduction to 32% in the rate of tax applicable to refunds of AVC surpluses.

Some things never seem to change: the golden handshake exemption remains at £30,000, for example. On the DSS front, likewise the widow's lump sum payment is still only £1,000, and the pensioner's 80th birthday celebration (the age addition to the pension) a miserly 25p. Not so good.

Contracted-out rebates remain unchanged from 1999/2000, but some big changes are afoot on NICs. An employee threshold of £76 is to be introduced (although benefit entitlement will still be based on earnings above the LEL (£67 pw) but most self-employed face a whopping 48% increase in so-called Class 4 contributions, the maximum going up from £1,108.20 to £1,640.45.

Many self-employed, particularly in the IT industry, will be hit particularly hard by the so-called IR35 regulation which will force them to pay Class 1 NICs (both primary and secondary) and apply PAYE to their earnings, drastically reducing their profits. This sledgehammer arose from a Revenue concern about individuals leaving employment, setting up a personal service company, and contracting their services back to the employer. A big drop in NIC liability resulted from taking the bulk of their remuneration as dividends, on which NICs are not payable.

From a business point of view, the decision to increase the maximum contribution to an ISA from the planned £5,000 to £7,000 does not exactly help to make pension saving attractive. Neither does the 0.5% increase on stamp duty, which will not encourage schemes to invest in commercial property. With all the problems for pension fund portfolios created by the MFR, passive management, tracker funds, and so-called lifestyling, this kind of disincentive to diversification is hardly what was needed.

A Budget for pensions? We don't think so.